Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 0 of about 1
Sep 24, 2012 9:00pm PDT
's his job to do things that are good for his international shareholders. >> but under citizens united, he can contribute as much money as he or his board wants to on, secretly, on projects that may not be in the national. >> right. again, this is the nasty combination of the really, the incredibly dangerous accident of citizens united that allows this unlimited money and the other cases that have allowed unlimited contributions with a lack of disclosure. because the presumption, the reason the court said this wouldn't be corrupting is we would know who was giving and could hold them accountable. and we don't. >> it's like water running downhill. the old clichÉ, it finds a way around every obstacle you put into place. and that's what's happened to campaign finance reform. >> well it's a good clichÉ, it's been used by the supreme court. the reality is that dams hold. it can be done. in my view, mccain-feingold was doing that until justice o'connor retired, the only justice on the court who actually knew anything about politics and had run for office. and she was replaced by somebody w
Search Results 0 to 0 of about 1